Symposium : The Use of Force

• Kritsiotis, Dino

Abstract

This article considers the prominence that threats of force have had in international political life since the end of the Cold War, and how we tend to overlook these threats in favour of the actual uses of force. Security Council Resolution 678 of November 1990 is one such example. Emblematic of the rule of law and its New World Order, it is often invoked for the ‘authorisation’ it gave to Member States of the United Nations ‘co-operating with the Government of Kuwait … to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area’ – but this provision was made contingent upon whether ‘Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements [previous] resolutions’. We examine the range of circumstances in which threats of force have arisen and find that these go beyond the archetypal ‘close encounter’ between states – such as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the ‘threats of force’ directed against Iraq prior to Operation Desert Fox (1998) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003). Making use of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice from its <it>Nuclear Weapons</it> advisory opinion (1996), we advance the idea of a prohibition of <it>the application of force</it>, and consider the logistics of its operation in state practice; first, in the recent relations between the United States and Iran and, then, through a modern reprise of the facts of the <it>Corfu Channel Case</it> of April 1949. We allude to the importance of the legislative background and purpose behind this prohibition, constantly reflecting upon the intricacies of state relations in which this provision of the United Nations Charter seeks to make its mark.